Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Barber on TV Deal.
- Thread starter bn1&bn3 Albion
- Start date
I think No 8 is questionable (have Amex attendances been lower when we are on telly to which our CEO replied no). Monday looked very sparse. Of course he has the numbers which are not published.
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 9,122
In answer to Q3 Paul says this
"However, competing clubs will always be consulted on a particular selection and, as part of the discussions that take place, we do consider the likely impact on travel arrangements for supporters should there be a change of date or time.
Unfortunately, however, transport timetables, roadworks, and individual circumstances are of course totally outside of the club's control and we know it's virtually impossible to please everyone with every selection that's made."
Which in the case of the Forest game clearly appears to be not true at all. If the likely impact on travel arrangements had been considered then surely they would have said somethng about it. As a result the Albion will have far fewer fans at The City Ground than on the saturday.
I suspect that now we are on the run-in Sky just get what they want and there is no consideration given to fans at all. Or clubs just automatically go along with the selection as they want to keep Sky sweet.
"However, competing clubs will always be consulted on a particular selection and, as part of the discussions that take place, we do consider the likely impact on travel arrangements for supporters should there be a change of date or time.
Unfortunately, however, transport timetables, roadworks, and individual circumstances are of course totally outside of the club's control and we know it's virtually impossible to please everyone with every selection that's made."
Which in the case of the Forest game clearly appears to be not true at all. If the likely impact on travel arrangements had been considered then surely they would have said somethng about it. As a result the Albion will have far fewer fans at The City Ground than on the saturday.
I suspect that now we are on the run-in Sky just get what they want and there is no consideration given to fans at all. Or clubs just automatically go along with the selection as they want to keep Sky sweet.
You couldn't even get to Burnley this season in time for kick off by train. Not much consideration given there.
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 9,122
Another game I WOULD have gone to on a saturday, but couldn't because of the rearrangement.
Or down to Brighton, for the Middlesbro fans.
The Leeds game to a Monday would have been just as much of a ballache for their fans as our Forest one, too.
What a dreadful piece. I'm surprised the club put that out.
Herne Hill Seagull
Well-known member
It's one thing to consider the impact on travel arrangements for supporters, it's quite another to actually do anything about them. Middlesbrough were a good example of something the club can do for inconvenienced fans recently.
As Barber says, the clubs (collectively) have taken the coin, so must dance when told to, at risk of punitive legal action otherwise. For my part, I've always accepted the exigencies of TV companies' desire for this 'product', and understood the inherent realities they present us with. But I'll no longer pay to be a part of the problem - I've cancelled Sky. Since I buy a season ticket (and match and rail tickets) to be at the games, not to watch them on television, I've decided I'm not paying them to prevent me from doing so.
As I've said on here before, this is all gravy when things are going well for the club. But you don't have to look too hard for an example of what happens when things are not going well - look at Leeds; their home attendances are not great and, more noticeably, even their away following has dropped noticeably. That's down to a combination of factors, of course, but it's not all disaffection with the owners - Sky are part of the mix. Plenty of clubs (Bolton, for example) are now suffering the consequences of spending that money while it was coming in, only for success to desert them anyway, and then having the tap turned off, or at least closed to a relative trickle.
Barber's used a lot of words to say 'sorry, but that's how it is'. Of course it is - but as I say, I ain't paying the piper another penny.
As Barber says, the clubs (collectively) have taken the coin, so must dance when told to, at risk of punitive legal action otherwise. For my part, I've always accepted the exigencies of TV companies' desire for this 'product', and understood the inherent realities they present us with. But I'll no longer pay to be a part of the problem - I've cancelled Sky. Since I buy a season ticket (and match and rail tickets) to be at the games, not to watch them on television, I've decided I'm not paying them to prevent me from doing so.
As I've said on here before, this is all gravy when things are going well for the club. But you don't have to look too hard for an example of what happens when things are not going well - look at Leeds; their home attendances are not great and, more noticeably, even their away following has dropped noticeably. That's down to a combination of factors, of course, but it's not all disaffection with the owners - Sky are part of the mix. Plenty of clubs (Bolton, for example) are now suffering the consequences of spending that money while it was coming in, only for success to desert them anyway, and then having the tap turned off, or at least closed to a relative trickle.
Barber's used a lot of words to say 'sorry, but that's how it is'. Of course it is - but as I say, I ain't paying the piper another penny.
Ron Manager
Oooh, wasn't it?
Not his best
The Albion Roar
97.2FM
Barber: On occasions, live TV selections may be declined for operational, policing or fixture timing reasons but this is rare - and has to be done so with good and justifiable reasons.
Really? Huddersfield were threatened with a points deduction after West Yorkshire Police decided that the game Sky wanted to show against Hull City about five years ago would be a bubble match, and wouldn't allow it to go ahead at the time Sky wanted it to.
Barber: It's also easy to forget that football's TV monies don't just go towards the professional game or, as some would believe solely to players' salaries, but go towards developing, growing and supporting the game at grass roots levels up and down the country.
Really? This may or may not be the case at the Albion, but it's certainly not the case in the Premier League, where collectively, they've reneged on their promise and commitment to spend 5% of their TV revenue on grassroots football.
As a director of the Football League, has could at the very least be pushing Sky for compensation for fans whose travel plans have been disrupted. At no point in the contract talks have the fans been considered, let alone consulted. The TV deal has nothing to do with fans; in fact, it's actively working against what fans bring to the game, and therefore ultimately the whole spectacle that Sky intend to broadcast.
Really? Huddersfield were threatened with a points deduction after West Yorkshire Police decided that the game Sky wanted to show against Hull City about five years ago would be a bubble match, and wouldn't allow it to go ahead at the time Sky wanted it to.
Barber: It's also easy to forget that football's TV monies don't just go towards the professional game or, as some would believe solely to players' salaries, but go towards developing, growing and supporting the game at grass roots levels up and down the country.
Really? This may or may not be the case at the Albion, but it's certainly not the case in the Premier League, where collectively, they've reneged on their promise and commitment to spend 5% of their TV revenue on grassroots football.
As a director of the Football League, has could at the very least be pushing Sky for compensation for fans whose travel plans have been disrupted. At no point in the contract talks have the fans been considered, let alone consulted. The TV deal has nothing to do with fans; in fact, it's actively working against what fans bring to the game, and therefore ultimately the whole spectacle that Sky intend to broadcast.
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
So mr barber...do you care an iota about our fans who bought train tickets to Nottingham for the Saturday game, bought the match tickets, and now because of sky...and no one else....they have lost out and possibly can't make the Monday game.
As you answer your own question..ill answer this.
No you fecking well don't. You don't give a toss...crocodile tears. If you did the club would have made a gesture and refunded their costs!
As you answer your own question..ill answer this.
No you fecking well don't. You don't give a toss...crocodile tears. If you did the club would have made a gesture and refunded their costs!
MattBackHome
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 11,875
Mattbackhome: What did you think of that article?
Mattbackhome: I hated it
Mattbackhome: I hated it
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Don't be silly and this isn't singled out towards Mr Barber, all chairmen are taking their pieces of silver and bowing down to the Sky God - being shafted when it sees fit!
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
I'm probably Barber's biggest fan boy but even I reckon his answer to question 6 about disruption to fans was a cop-out. A complete non-answer that doesn't address the fact that often fans have already made plans and that football is supposed to be played on Saturday afternoons, most fans who go to games want that and there may well come a point when they take the piss too often.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Why did he bother with that ? He doesn't know what it's like to book a ticket and then a month later find that it is USELESS and no REFUND
The most insulting pieces of that article, for me, are as follows:
1. "In some cases, smaller or less financially stable clubs rely on this central TV income to pay wages or, in some cases, for their very existence. It's not that long ago that our club was in a similarly perilous position."
What irks me:
i) PB is a passenger of our club. He will move on at some point - that's the way it works with professional football administrators. As such, although I understand why he has, does and will say "our club", it's not really his whereas it is ours. It only grates here because:
ii) Our "perilous position" was largely due to some nefarious individuals trying to kill our club for personal profit. That is entirely irrelevant to this debate.
2. "My job with the League (which is unpaid)"
Was there any need for the words in brackets? PB is remarkably well paid and, many would say, justifiably so - he is regarded as one of the best at what he does. Most supporters who are affected by the switching of fixtures for TV scheduling lose what to them is a significant sum of money. They don't earn hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. They don't have the ability to do some extra (career enhancing) work on the side without recompense.
3. "we do consider the likely impact on travel arrangements for supporters should there be a change of date or time."
There is absolutely no evidence that this extends beyond "there will be significant impact on travel arrangements for supporters. Oh well."
If it were a genuine and serious consideration then games such as Albion v Leeds would never be switched to a Monday evening. I'd be interested to see a list of the games where this supposed consideration led to a game not being moved. I believe it would be a very short list, if it is even a list at all.
4. "This is all well and good but are you concerned about the disruption to fixtures?"
A direct question completely swerved. They might as well have not included this question.
1. "In some cases, smaller or less financially stable clubs rely on this central TV income to pay wages or, in some cases, for their very existence. It's not that long ago that our club was in a similarly perilous position."
What irks me:
i) PB is a passenger of our club. He will move on at some point - that's the way it works with professional football administrators. As such, although I understand why he has, does and will say "our club", it's not really his whereas it is ours. It only grates here because:
ii) Our "perilous position" was largely due to some nefarious individuals trying to kill our club for personal profit. That is entirely irrelevant to this debate.
2. "My job with the League (which is unpaid)"
Was there any need for the words in brackets? PB is remarkably well paid and, many would say, justifiably so - he is regarded as one of the best at what he does. Most supporters who are affected by the switching of fixtures for TV scheduling lose what to them is a significant sum of money. They don't earn hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. They don't have the ability to do some extra (career enhancing) work on the side without recompense.
3. "we do consider the likely impact on travel arrangements for supporters should there be a change of date or time."
There is absolutely no evidence that this extends beyond "there will be significant impact on travel arrangements for supporters. Oh well."
If it were a genuine and serious consideration then games such as Albion v Leeds would never be switched to a Monday evening. I'd be interested to see a list of the games where this supposed consideration led to a game not being moved. I believe it would be a very short list, if it is even a list at all.
4. "This is all well and good but are you concerned about the disruption to fixtures?"
A direct question completely swerved. They might as well have not included this question.
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Showing his true colours, at least Darren Bloom thanked us on the train back from Blackburn for our patience with all these fixtures being changed for Sky
studio150
Well-known member
When did the match tickets go on sale for the Forest game thought we were only ip to Birmingham on away sales.